G.R. No. 125906 January 16, 1998
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Juanito Aquino, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Juanito Aquino was charged with Murder for the killing of Primitivo Lazatin on March 22, 1991, in Llanera, Nueva Ecija. The Information alleged he shot the victim with an armalite rifle with treachery and evident premeditation. At around 10:00 PM, the victim was in bed when he heard knocking, opened a window, and was fired upon with successive shots, hitting his throat, chest, and finger, causing instantaneous death. The assailant then used a flashlight to check the victim. The prosecution’s main witness, Florida Lazatin (the victim’s wife), positively identified the assailant as Juanito Aquino, the common-law husband of her sister, whom she had known for seven years. She testified she was beside her husband and saw the accused fire, recognizing him by his facial features and physical build under illumination from a trouble light and a neighbor’s house. Her testimony was corroborated by neighbor Dominador Rosete, who heard gunshots and saw the accused holding a gun outside the victim’s house immediately after. The accused interposed an alibi, claiming he was at Imelda Valley Camp in Palayan City, over thirty kilometers away, working as an informer for the 79th Infantry Battalion, a claim corroborated by his common-law wife. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of Murder, imposing an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, and elevated the case to the Supreme Court as required by the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the crime committed was murder or homicide.
3. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.

RULING

1. Yes, the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the factual findings of the lower courts, giving great weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The positive identification by Florida Lazatin, who knew the accused well and saw him under sufficient illumination, and the corroborating testimony of Dominador Rosete, sufficiently established the accused’s guilt. The defense of alibi, being inherently weak, cannot prevail over positive identification. The accused failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene, as the distance of thirty kilometers was traversable by land.
2. The crime committed was Murder, qualified by treachery. Treachery was present as the attack was sudden and unexpected, rendering the victim defenseless. The assailant knocked on the door, and when the victim looked out the window, he was suddenly fired upon without any opportunity to defend himself.
3. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. At the time of the crime, the penalty for Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is reclusion perpetua. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the modified penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals and ordered the accused to pay the heirs of the victim P50,000.00 as indemnity, P20,000.00 as actual damages, and P10,000.00 as moral damages.